> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:55:57 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:20PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > Basically, I'm at the point where trying to create clean patches from my
> > LVM source tree to apply to CVS is so much work it is hardly worth it.
>
> IMHO wou should just put _your_ tree on a sever and submit it (in pieces)
> to Linus. AFAIK all serious users of LVM have used you're patched versions.
>
> Maybe openlvm is a good hood for such a project?
>
> > I'm seriously looking at devoting the time I used to spend on LVM to the
> > EVMS project instead. They (appear to) have in-kernel LVM support working
> > already, so no user tools needed for VG/LV activation. Granted, they don't
> > yet have tools to create/modify VG/LVs, but I think I can help them there.
>
> Yes - when looking at what code they produces it looks a _lot_ cleaner than
> Linux-LVM and while the papers had serious signs of Overengeering the
> actual code looks very good to me - it could just get a little better
> integrated with the main kernel, but that's a 2.5 issue.
>
> Christoph
What is the EVMS project? Is this just improvements to LVM, or something
entirely different?
-Casey
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/